Last Shermans Standing (Almost) - Chilean M51 and M60

[Kingsman]

I say "almost" as the Chilean Shermans were the last in operational service anywhere in the world - except for 3 Argentine Repotenciado upgrades used by Paraguay until as recently as 2018 and a handful in Argentina with mine rollers into the 21st century. They left service in 2002, some 7 years after Argentina withdrew the Repotenciado and 57 years after the very last Sherman rolled off the production line at Pressed Steel Car's Hegewisch plant.  Like most long-surviving - even long-suffering - Shermans they had become FrankenShermans over time.  But they represent the ultimate configuration of that sometimes-maligned tank more than half a century after it first appeared.

 

So this is my next project.  Another double build and more FrankenShermans: a theme is developing…….

 

This build involves an ex-Israeli M51, so I start by apologising to Bullbasket as he has an IDF M51 build blog running right now.  Although his is an early version and mine will be very late.  And we’re using different base kits: newish Tamiya vs Dragon.

This pair will be the afore-mentioned M51 and the M60 version of the M50 unique to Chile fitted with the Israeli 60mm HVMS gun. 

 

A quick bit of history, culled from Tom Gannon’s book on Shermans In The Chilean Army.  Chile had acquired some surplus US 75mm M4A1E9s in the late 1940s and used them until the mid-70s.  By that time there were growing tensions with Peru, who had acquired some T-54s and T-55s which completely outclassed the old Shermans.  Now, 30-year old FrankenShermans in their 3rd or 4th lease of life are not necessarily the most obvious choice in the mid-70s to counter this threat.  But this was the start of the Pinochet era, Chile wasn’t in many countries’ good books and as a result they had been getting pally over military kit with Israel, who were happy to deal with them.  The success of Israel’s upgunned M51 Shermans against T-55s was well known.  Israel was taking them out of service, Chile was familiar with Shermans and Israeli Shermans were optimised for desert conditions: Chile has a lot of desert. So a deal was done. Although the Israeli Shermans actually had different engines, different guns and different suspension from Chile’s old M4A1s so I don’t know just how far the familiarity went…….

 

The first buy was 119 M51s.  These were all unmodified very late “final” configuration, and all appear to have been on large-hatch cast hulls.  However by 1990 the Cummins engine was becoming unreliable and unsupportable so a new Continental engine was installed in 100 tanks together with engine deck modifications to suit.  This will be my model version.

 

Later in the 1970’s Chile fell out with Argentina and was actually invaded by Argentina – for a few hours.  Concerns emerged that the M51’s 105mm gun might no longer be sufficiently effective.  Tom Gannon’s book says against Peruvian T-62s: but Peru never acquired any T-62s and still has non-upgraded T-55s to this day.  Whatever the reason, Chile wanted something cheap with more armour penetration.  Israel offered the newly-developed 60mm HVMS gun and Chile was convinced - although going from a 105mm HEAT round to a 60mm APDS might seem a retrograde step and Chile remains the only customer for that weapon.  To carry the new gun Chile ordered yet more ex-IDF Shermans, 65 M50s this time re-designated as M60.  They received an assorted bag of large and small hatch hull types.  The M60s also had a new engine installed by Israel, but a different one from the M51 with another different engine deck.  IDF had chosen a GM engine to replace its Cummins, but never went ahead with the change as Shermans were going out of service.

 

So this was Build Plan A, which I’d had in mind and in the stash for several years.  Dragon M51 and M50 kits with Greg Buechler’s conversion kits.  Conventional.  Greg’s excellent conversion kits are OOP now but FC Modeltrend have just released an M60 conversion.  I can’t attest to its quality and they do get a mixed press.

 

But now, having read Tom Gannon’s book, there is a Build Plan B which looks like this.

 

Is that a hand up at the back of the class?  Yes?  Why are there 2 M51s now and no M50?  Well it’s like this.  Sherman gun tanks were in very short supply in Israel by then and only 60 assorted M50s could be found.  So Chile provided 5 75mm turrets from their old M4A1E9s to allow 5 new-build M50 conversions to be built about 15 years after the originals.  These were built on what appear to be M51 cast hulls, making a unique configuration not used by Israel: at least I'm not aware of any IDF cast-hull M50s.  At least 1 of these was a small-hatch hull and at least 3 were large-hatch: I don’t know about the 5th one.  So rather than make yet another conventional M4A4-based M50 I decided to do one of these unique oddballs.  Tamiya M51 hull crossed with a spare Dragon M50 turret I bought on eBay.

 

A degree of luck may be required here as these parts were not intended to be used in this arrangement.

[DanReed]

Interesting builds.

Some buddies of mine did military duty in Chile about 20 years ago and quite a few of these shermans were in the back of the motor pool or being used as gate guards.

Dan

[Kingsman]

While I was waiting for the Tamiya M51s (yes, plural - watch this space…..) to arrive courtesy of Model Hobbies, I thought I'd make a start on the 2 Dragon turrets.  Which turned into essentially finishing them.

 

Fit of top and bottom was poor on both, needing a lot of filing and sanding.  Some welds needed to be restored with stretched sprue and pyrogravure.  I elected to use the kit canvas mantlet covers and found that the awkwardly-placed joins could be dealt with by filing and brushing with liquid poly to blend.  The pistol ports are separate parts which needed to be blended in all round with filler. A casting number was added to the M51 turret with Slater’s lettering and Chilean welded inventory numbers to both with more Slater’s lettering.  Having done all this I brushed Humbrol liquid poly over both turrets, working it with the nylon brush from the bottle.  I prefer this for cast texture to Mr Surfacer.  Mind you by the time I was finished I was at 30,000 feet with my own icon on FlightRadar!

 

  

 

One thing both Tamiya and Dragon missed on the M51 is the odd piece of armour plate between the turret hatches, covering a hole cut in the turret roof to get a couple of extra degrees gun depression.  The 60mm mortar was mounted on here when carried.  Chile didn’t get the mortars although the tanks retained the base and most had the travel lock.  The M51's gun barrel is from MR Modellbau.  The scissors mount for the 0.30 Browning was a PITA as no-one makes it.  All Chilean M51s had it, although it is an Israeli mount.  The 60mm mortar precluded using the central MG pintle, which became its travel lock, so a new mount was needed.  Although IDF liked the tubular swing mount for Brownings and later MAGs, for some reason the M51 got this unique scissors-type mount.  All IDF M51s with the mortar fitted should have had it but pictures are rare.  Test of my meagre scratchbuilding ability - and ability to find pinged small pieces on the floor!  The correct gun cradle itself is in the MiniArt "US MG" set (in reality an IDF MG set).  In that set MiniArt give 2 very nice 0.30 Brownings with moulded barrel jackets and slide-moulded muzzles, but also 2 where they expect you to roll your own etched brass barrel jacket around a plastic barrel.  A bit daft.  I used an RB Models barrel instead.  The cradle is just held on with blu-tack now.  Chile had an on-off-on again relationship with the 0.50 Browning ranging gun but they are rarely seen in operational photos so I decided against.

 

  

 

The 5 M4A1 turrets provided by Chile had applique patches, left in place but cut back in Israel to clear the conversion mantlet extension.  They also had no loader’s hatches.  Israel had its own loader’s hatch to fit to non-hatch turrets, very similar to the factory version but with a raised surround.  Dragon goofed this on their M50 as they give a factory flush fit hatch, which M4A4 never had.  Fortunately the Shapeways M50 detail set has the correct hatch and surround, fitted here.  Springs are guitar strings, partly unwound.  I didn’t have all the M50 turret parts so the commander’s cupola is from TMD from the parts box.  The smoke grenade launchers are also from the Shapeways set, drilled out.  The M60 barrel and antenna bases are from Greg Buechler’s set.  Browning MG and mount from Zebrano with RB Models barrel.  The Dragon M50 turret has the machined lower edge which is certainly more typical on M4A4s than on other species, but rather than mess up wrapping it with plastic strip and trying to blend in with filler and texture I elected to leave it.  I might re-visit that but it will be much harder with the turret fully dressed.

 

  

Edited May 20, 2020 by Das Abteilung
Correction

[Vaastav]

Looks to be an interesting topic. I will hop on as well if you don't mind. 

[Bullbasket]

12 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

This build involves an ex-Israeli M51, so I start by apologising to Bullbasket as he has an IDF M51 build blog running right now. 

 

12 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

at least I'm not aware of any IDF cast-hull M50s. 

Don't worry about that Peter, as mine is 99.5% finished. It's only household workload that stops me putting it in RFI.

But the IDF did in fact build M50s on cast hulls.

There are a few photos of this type in one of the Sabingamartin books.

I'll be following your build of the 60 as it will probably help with my stalled build of the same.

 

John.

[Kingsman]

Damn! That's another one for the M50 variant build list. I've seen frontal shots of what could at a glance be M50 with cast hulls but those all proved to be M4 composites. For VVSS M50s I'm currently planning M4 Composite and M4A4T. 

 

Now, how many of those M4A1 M50s went through the Cummins and HVSS rebuilds to emerge as definitive M50s is a question. Cast hulls of both types were definitely preferred for the M51 programme (perhaps oddly with the larger ammunition to stow) and M51s were certainly far more homogenous than M50s, with all but a dozen or so being on M4A1.

 

That being said, I firmly believe that the large-hatch cast hull Chilean M60s are the tanks converted using the 5 Chilean-supplied turrets and M51 hulls.  Only 60 M50s were available so 5 M51 hulls must have been used. Large hatch cast hulls would have been 76mm tanks and so would have become M51s, not M50s.  The fact that small hatch cast hull M50s were supplied to Chile suggests that my question above is answered and that there were indeed some IDF small-hatch cast hull HVSS Cummins M50s.

 

Photos suggest that Chile received M60s with large and small hatch M4A1 hulls, M4 and/or M4A3 and M4A4 welded hulls.

[robw_uk]

Nice progress, love the work so far

[Kingsman]

In his M51 build Bullbasket suggested that the Tamiya kit is streets ahead of the others.  Here's an example of how.  The nose of the Dragon kit quite simply doesn't fit - as long as you want to fit the bolt strip, which of course you must.  The result is that the nose is slightly too long but it doesn't really show.  On the other hand, the Tamiya kit has 16 - yes, count them: 16 - ejector pin marks on the outer face of each lower hull side plus 2 more on each rear extension piece.

 

In a piece of complete lunacy Dragon give you a lower hull with squared-off sponson undersides, which they have you trim to fit the cast front profile.  This you will never do without some filler.  You then add the shaped front trackguard sections without any positive locations.  But they also give you square-cut front trackguards which will fit perfectly well without the surgery.......

 

The Dragon cast texture is perhaps a little overdone.  But on the other hand the Tamiya texture is very under-done: there really isn't any.  In my case both were addressed by the application of liquid poly and brush texturing.

 

 

Here's an interesting comparison of the Israeli implementation of the French CN-105 gun in the M51 and the Argentine version in the Repotenciado from another build.  These 2 tanks might have faced each other in action if the Beagle Channel dispute had become a shooting war.

 

Israel used the larger "T23" 76mm turret whereas Argentina used the extended Firefly 75mm turret.  Israel shortened the gun barrel to 44 calibres and used new ammunition with a smaller cartridge case in a smaller chamber, but still had a massive muzzle brake.  Argentina used the standard ammunition in order to keep compatibility with their AMX-13/105 and SK-105.  The gun designation of FTR57/44 might also suggest a 44 calible barrel, but it is obviously very much shorter: closer to 34 calibres and with a much smaller muzzle brake.  But then with HEAT the muzzle velocity has little impact on terminal effect, but does result in a lobbing trajectory and longer flight time.  No APDS for Argentina.  Muzzle blast must have been something else with a full cartridge from a barrel roughly 2/3 of the design length (L/50)...........

 

[NinjabreadMan]

Wow, these are really coming on, the attention to detail and background research is amazing! I can't wait to see how they progress.

[Kingsman]

That's the engine decks about done after fiddling with them on and off for about 3 days.  Fit of the resin parts isn't great and most of them were warped to some extent.  The fit of the etched parts isn't brilliant either.  But as I noted at the top, I'm not using them on the kits for which they were intended so some fit issues were not unexpected.  The M51 set is designed for the Tamiya kit but I'm using on Dragon and the M60 set is designed for Dragon or Asuka and I'm using on Tamiya.

 

I messed up shortening the M60 deck to fit the A1 hull (it's designed for an A4) and had to replace some parts with plastic card.   The M60 deck was actually straightforward as it's all resin apart from the brass exhaust shroud.  Take an exhaust pipe and just dump it over the side..........  There is a flapper on the end which you can't see here.

 

The M51 deck was a complete PITA with those etched brass vents,  Every slat is a separate piece.  Lord knows what the neighbours thought about the frequent vociferous swearing that resulted. The left hand one with the slats over the exhaust was, to quote Baldrick freely, more of a PITA than a PITA who is professor of PITA at PITA University...........  A jig is provided to assemble that part but it's very hard to get it all square and neat.  I haven't succeeded at all well there, but it will just have to do.  The exhaust pipe needed a lot of work as it isn't actually a consistent diameter and has quite a hump meaning that the vent section wouldn't fit without a lot of filing and sanding of the pipe, which is a single-piece casting.  In reality it was a commercial truck exhaust - the sort of thing you'd find up the back of a US semi tractor cab - complete with chromed guard, painted of course but often peeling.

 

The thing that surprises me most here are the engine choices: 2 different ones  Here the timescales are a bit sketchy as to which came first.  Israel had prototyped the GM replacement for the Cummins but decided not to adopt it - but did fit it to the M60s supplied to Chile.  Chile had chosen a Continental engine which it fitted quite slowly from 1990-95 and didn't complete the whole fleet.  So they actually had 3 engines in service as 18 M51s retained the Cummins to the end.  Supportability nightmare........  But if the GM in the M60 came first (I believe it did) and Israel had already engineered it, why did Chile not just adopt that?  If the Continental in the M51 came first why did Chile not specify that for the M60?  I guess we will never know and I guess most of us won't care: I can't shake off having been involved in equipment support concepts in MOD for several years before I left.

 

The rear bin parts were all badly warped and wafer thin in places.  Neither kit provides these, although to my mind the Dragon kit build standard should.  The Tamiya configuration is too early for it but the Academy kit correctly has it.  I managed to sort of straighten them in hot water but had to make one look repaired to deal with the wafer thickness. I've got 3 Shapeways 3D printed bins which are very much better once sanded smooth and I haven't decided yet whether to use these (centre).  The cheapskate in me says these kits have cost me enough already without allocating yet more parts to them!  The fittings underneath are for the track tensioning wrench.

[robw_uk]

Both look very nice - and even with difficulties I am in awe of the PE louvres

[Kingsman]

Here's another reason why the Tamiya kit may be considered superior to Dragon. Bogies.  Always a problem in any form...........

 

Here are the parts of a Tamiya bogie. 8.                                                                           Looks OK to me, sanding dust aside.  But from the right angle above you can see the hollow back of the inner HVSS springs.  Wheels will be left separate for painting.

        

 

On the other hand, here are the parts of a single Dragon bogie.......... 8+20.  Yes, 28 parts each.  But if made carefully it will articulate should you wish it to.  And the separate tyres, thankfully in hard plastic, will make painting easier.

[Kingsman]

Did I mention that the 28 parts, of which only 25 are plastic, have 35 sprue gates and 21 knock-out pins? So that'll be 46 sprue gates to clean up then........

[Soeren]

Considering the level of detail that Dragon kits can have it would be well worth it. At least I found that to be the case for their Panther kits. Just lovin´ them.

[Kingsman]

Harder to get squared and true than the Tamiya version. Springs and brass tube are a waste of time. Trying to get everything together with the springs without bits pinging everywhere is nigh impossible. I gave up, not wanting them working anyway. The brass tube will only work with a lot of filing down of the plastic piston.

 

The middle ground would be more parts than Tamiya, less than Dragon and forget the articulation.

 

The only other Dragon HVSS kits I have are some M50s and these have completely different bogie parts to the M51.

[Kingsman]

So, bogie saga over.  But when I was fitting them to the hull I noticed something about the drive sprockets that hadn't struck me before.  The Tamiya ones had central guide rings for the guide horns, whereas the Dragon did not.  A quick look in an Academy M51 revealed that this kit has them too.  Something not quite right here. Or is there?

 

A question over on Missing Lynx got the hoped-for answer from Kurt Laughlin.  Guide rings were never factory-fitted.  The spockets for the M26, and later M46 and M47, were essentially the same as those from the M4 and did have the guide rings, but far too narrow for the wider guide horns on the M4 track.  Hmmmmm.......

 

These rings are only seen on Israeli Shermans (hold that thought) so the inescapable conclusion is that the "ringed" sprocket hubs are Israeli-made.  Why seems to be unknown, likewise why they only appeared very late in service.

 

Surfing back through the Tom Gannon Israeli and Chilean Sherman books again looking for sprocket rings (good job I'm on furlough, eh?) I came to the following conclusions.

• Couldn't see a single period IDF M50 with the rings
• However, some of the M60 supplied to Chile did have them - on both A1 and A4 hulls
• Some late-service M51s did have them
• Some M51 supplied to Chile had them, which fits with the previous point
• The Latrun M51 has them
• Other preserved M51 and M50 have them
• At least some M32s with HVSS had them
• At least some Gordons had them

So they are NOT appropriate to an early M51 as kitted by Tamiya.  Fooled by Latrun, at a guess.  But they could be appropriate for a cast-hull Chilean M60.  Probably not appropriate to the Dragon M51 kit either as it isn't the final late configuration - but I was making it thus with this conversion and some Chilean M51 had them. The rings are appropriate to the Academy M51 kit.

 

I tried a sprocket swap but they didn't fit well, and no-one wants a wobbly sprocket!  I could have left them on the M60, but decided against it.  So they were clipped off and the damage fettled.

 

[Kingsman]

This didn't set out to be a comparison between the newer Tamiya and older Dragon M51 kits.  Although building the 2 side by side was bound to lead to some comparisons.

 

There are some very noticeable hull variations, especially in the glacis area but also the hull length and width and the drivers'hatches.  The Tamiya glacis is quite shapely, even voluptuous, whereas the Dragon is more bulbous and less sculpted.  While the hull castings came from several foundries they can't have varied that much.  All large-hatch M4A1 were assembled by Pressed Steel Car, and in fact the M4A1E8 was the last version of the Sherman off the line in Aug 45.

 

Here are the 2 hulls, with the Academy M51 on the left for comparison.  Although the Academy hull looks very much smaller than either Dragon or Tamiya, it is lower down in the photo as the other 2 are on their wheels and it's a close-up photo.  It measures out almost identically to the Tamiya.  The Academy shape is closer to Tamiya than to Dragon.  The Dragon upper hull is correctly longer at the rear as it has the "airflow extension" fitted to some cast hulls.  You can see the weld join.

 

Here's a closer view of the 2.  The glacis contours, hatch size and location differences between Tamiya and Dragon are also readily apparent.  If you line up the sprockets the Dragon hull sits much further forward.  If you line up the bolt strips then the Tamiya nose is  longer and sprockets further forward.  Wierd.  The Tamiya kit shares the upper hull (ex trackguards) with their M1 Sherman kit and is essentially the same.  Likewise the Dragon kit shares its upper hull with their M4A1(76) (i.e. M1 again) and is the same as that.  So each brand is at least consistentently right or wrong!

 

Using the 1/35 plans in Son Of Sherman as a reference I discovered the following.

 

The Tamiya hull is about 2mm too narrow

The Dragon hull is about 2mm too wide

Tamiya's hatch position from the centreline is OK

Dragon's hatch position is about 2mm too far apart and each is about 2mm too far towards the hull edge

Because the Dragon hatches are about 2mm too wide from side to side and about 1mm from front to back, whereas Tamiya's are OK

Both hull fronts are about 2mm short measured from the turret splash ring to the bolt strip

If you line up the turret ring centres then the back of the Dragon bolt strip is level with the front of the Tamiya strip

The Dragon glacis should have a deeper scalloped area between the hatches and should be slightly less steep and bulbous overall.

 

So I guess you pays your money and takes your choice.

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Das Abteilung
Correction

[Kingsman]

I think I'm calling the M60 done.  Although since the photos I have added some Archer casting number and symbol 3D decals.  First time I've used these are they worked and look OK.  Settled down with Micro Sol and then over-varnished when dry  Wierdly, Archer suggest that you can apply them directly onto wet varnish.  Can't see you being able to adjust the position like that.

 

I decided to use the Shapeways rear bin as I was still unhappy wih the Buechler parts. These tanks are rarely seen with any stowage but I've put a couple of rolled canvasses and 3 different oil cans in the basket.  Headlight guards and jerrycan holders are also Shapeways.  Yes thicker than etched but thinner than kit parts and easier to handle and fit.  The can holders have pegs on the back and come with a drilling template for mounting: neat.  Chile used US type steel jerrycans as well as the IDF plastic ones.  the US ones didn't fit the racks properly, here from TMD.  The IDF cans are Plus Model.  I have several brands including Plus Model, Accurate Armour, Royal Model and Panzer Art.  None of them fitted the racks and they are all commendably the same width. Of course, both kits' cans are made slimmer to fit the thick injection moulded holders.  And whoever mastered the racks has used the incorrect kit cans as a width reference.  These cans have their bottom corners shaved slightly to allow them to fit: shouldn't show........  There will be straps after painting: cans are loose for painting.  Shapeways provide the little strap securing loops for the hull side, not visible here, although these are easily made with wire or etched parts.

 

The white thing next to the spare wheel is the exhaust for a 2nd APU installed on M60s for the new electric turret drive.  The Buechler set doesn't provide this.  A new larger non-retracting driver's hatch periscope was fitted and most M60's got an IR periscope in the front position, although no external change was needed for this on the cast hulls (welded hulls had extended hoods).  I don't know what the rolled-up black tube or cable on the glacis was for.  But there is a special bracket for it and most tanks seemed to carry it.  Tamiya and Dragon both missed the fact that all hull stowage boxes and brackets were mounted on studs and stood away from the hull itself.  Corrected with pieces of plastic rod.

 

One thing I have missed is the stretcher bracket on the right upper hull, just above where the (re-located) crowbar is.  Widely fitted on IDF Shermans and on all Chilean ones, M51 and M60.  Not given in any kit or accessory set that I've come across.  More dubious scratchbuilding needed.......

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Das Abteilung
addition

[Kingsman]

Trackguards, eh? Why do the simple things turn out so problematic?

 

Tamiya mould theirs integrally with the upper hull, as above.  Strong and looks perfectly OK.  Academy do the same.  That meant re-tooling a new mould for Tamiya as their related M1 Sherman kit is VVSS.  Dragon took the approach of using their standard M4A1 large hatch hull with add-on trackguards.  And this is where it goes wrong.

 

Firstly, the M51 kit includes all the parts for (very chunky) plastic trackguards but the instructions don't even mention them.  For some other parts they offer the alternative of plastic or brass, but for the trackguards they assume the use of the brass.  And to this end, as I mentioned above, they have you cut off the part of the front trackguard attached to the lower hull.  My worry is that the brass trackguards will never attach strongly enough to survive handling for painting etc. Dragon have you bend an edge and attach them to the hull with that, which is both wrong and will cause them to sit too high.  The front pieces attach to the hull only by their edges; uber-fragile.

 

But Dragon are also confused.  M4A1 factory-fit and US rebuild extended trackguards for E8 and E9 suspension had holes along the outer edge for sandshields, a piece at the back above each track with a conical support on the hull corner and adjustable tubular turnbuckle supports.  IDF manufactured ones had no holes, no back pieces, no conical support and U section fixed supports.  Dragon give you brass parts with some edge holes and some not and the U section supports, but without the little hull attachment blocks. So a mixture of factory and IDF parts that fit incorrectly.  Good skills there, Dragon..............

 

So on balance I think I'm going to use the brass parts as templates for plastic card trackguards and attach them as per the original, bolted to flanges welded under the sponsons.  Much more durable.

 

I also don't see how I'm going to assemble and attach the brass can racks strongly enough as Dragon have you attach them directly to the hull rather than to stand-offs and the lower mounting tabs are separate parts.  Not sure that cyano will stop them getting broken off or that I'm up to soldering on slices of brass rod or tube and trying to solder 3 pieces together at the same time.  I think they may also be too narrow, being sized for the narrow kit cans designed to fit the thick injection moulded racks.  May be another outing for the Shapeways ones, which are still the wrong size but at least fit better.  Oh, and they forgot to put the stowage boxes on stand-offs or provide any mounting brackets for the spare wheels.....  And this is supposed to be enjoyable!

[zigster]

Maybe Shermans past 1945 are not in my field of interest, but there's always plenty of good info floating around, when Das Abteilung doing some stuff :-))

Zig

[Kingsman]

Conversely I'm not a fan of wartime ones.  Green Things.  Mostly.  I have a USMC M4A2 in the stash but only because I like the PTO 3-colour scheme.  It might have concrete, timber and mesh applique.  I have 3 or 4 early A1 and A2 kits but again largely in order to do British non-green finishes: desert and Italy.  My post-war, mainly IDF, M4 build list runs to about 20.  Although trying to get your head around Israeli cross-breeding can make your head explode because of the mongrel collection of tanks and parts they acquired.🤯

 

Having said that, getting your head around the configuration evolution of M4s over 3 and a half years of production across 10 assembly plants and hundreds of sub-suppliers with literally hundreds of potential variations is an equally good route to a large strong drink - followed by another.

 

I like to try to get things as "right" and accurate as I can within limitations of skill, sanity and cost.

 

As acknowledged M4 expert Kurt Laughlin noted recently over on Missing Lynx, when many of the current clutch of M4 kits were tooled - basically everything except Tasca/Asuka and the very recent Meng and RFM kits - no-one had any real idea these myriad variations even existed.  Hunnicutt didn't really cover them in his extensive and seminal Sherman book.  It took another 30+ years for that information to be captured in Son Of Sherman by Kurt and others and in the Manasherob and Gannon IDF books.

[Bullbasket]

That M60 looks excellent Peter. I prefer your approach to this build, rather than mine, as the Tamiya kit is a far better starting point. Mine is the old Drragon kit with the exaggerated casting effect. I might start again, but whatever route I take, at least this time I've got your build to refer to, as well as the Tom Gannon book.

 

John. 

[Kingsman]

You look at a model nearly done and think "not much to do now".  And then you notice all the little bits and pieces, which seem to take forever.  Once again, Pareto's Rule applies: the final 20% of the work will take 80% of the time...........

 

That being said, I'm calling the M51 'finished' now.  I did make new plastic trackguards as discussed above, but not sure I made much of a job of it.  Those on the Tamiya kit are 5.5mm wide whereas the Dragon are 4.5mm, probably a function of the different hull widths.  I compromised at 5mm and thought I'd use the Dragon etched brass supports with slices of plastic rod for the missing mounting bosses as they look much better than the plastic parts.  But on reflection they must be far too tall, and are noticeably longer than the plastic ones.  On the narrower kit trackguards they would sit up even taller.  On balance I think they've made the side boxes sit up too high.  Some M51s had 2 US-type fire extinguishers on the right rear trackguard.  Yes, one really did obstruct the shovel stowage like that.

 

Dragon don't provide any means of support for the spare wheels: 3mm rod to the rescue.  Shapeways rear bin and can racks again,with more TMD fuel and Plus Model water cans.  1 rack empty for variety.  A couple of Eureka XXL rolled canvasses in the bin: these tanks are never seen with much stowage.  Discovered that I don't have any of the round 5 gallon oil cans commonly seen.  Must get some: will surely need them.  Problem is that I think only TWS made them and they're effectively closed. Stretcher racks made for both M51 and M60 above right stowage boxes.  Rarely seen filled, but the Legend IDF stowage set does have a couple of folded stretchers in it.

 

 

 

M51 and M60 together

 

[Mig Eater]

Did you ever get around to painting these two?